Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: Donald Trump: polls of approval and favorability
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Trump approval falls to 36 percent in new CBS poll

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/...qGTSEV4QVE
California: Quinnipiac, Jan. 30-Feb. 4, 912 RV

Approve 28
Disapprove 67

As if anyone is surprised.

Nancy Pelosi gets 55% approval for her handling of the job of Speaker of the House.  

Maryland: DFM Research

Trump approval 25% strong 12% somewhat
Trump disapproval 4% somewhat, 56% strong

http://dfmresearch.com/uploads/Maryland_...sstabs.pdf

Jan 19-22, 2019

Nevada: DFM Research

Trump approval
Strong 33%, Somewhat 8%
Trump disapproval -- somewhat 6%, strong 52%

DFM has its primary focus in those polls on  rail safety (two-person crews in locomotives as a minimum).



unsure/neutral 2%

http://dfmresearch.com/uploads/Nevada_Ra...sstabs.pdf

[Image: genusmap.php?year=1964&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=0;1;6]

With cumulative electoral vote totals in each category.

55% and higher
50-54%
49% or less and positive
tie (white)
44-49% and negative 112
40-43% 19
under 40%  109

An asterisk will be applied to any state in which the President's approval rating is above 43% for which the disapproval rating is 50% or higher.

No segregation of districts in Maine and Nebraska -- yet.

33 more states, and 297 electoral votes to go!
Many polls that make a distinction have strong disapproval for the President higher than total approval. That should make canvassing difficult for Republicans. On the statewide polling since the November election, I see no states yet for which approval of the President is above water -- even Alaska or Utah.

We are all accustomed to nearly-even Presidential races, but I already see a disaster in the making. Whether Trump loses California 55-45 or 70-30 will not make a difference in the state's 55 electoral votes. There are just so many ways for the President to lose and very few ways for him to win. At this stage I use a probabilistic model, and the zone of possibilities looks to be fully outside the zone of any reasonable chance of a Trump re-election. The strongest position that I can now see for President Trump is that he wins all the states in which Democrats got less than the majority of the vote in House elections. That is a 295-242 win in the Electoral College for a Democrat.

To say that the dynamics must change sharply for President Trump to have a chance to win re-election is about like predicting that summer will be hot in Texas.
People said in 2016 much the same thing. The worst thing Hillary and Democrats and progressives did in 2016 was to under-estimate Trump. He is a talented communicator; that's all that counts among American voters. Policies don't; approval polls don't. Unless Democrats nominate a talented candidate, I wouldn't bet on a Democratic victory. None of the announced candidates can beat Trump. They are opportunists merely taking up space on headlines. I have already stated who can, and who might be able to (maybe), win a 2020 election against Trump. They are very few.
(02-07-2019, 01:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]People said in 2016 much the same thing. The worst thing Hillary and Democrats and progressives did in 2016 was to under-estimate Trump. He is a talented communicator; that's all that counts among American voters. Policies don't; approval polls don't. Unless Democrats nominate a talented candidate, I wouldn't bet on a Democratic victory. None of the announced candidates can beat Trump. They are opportunists merely taking up space on headlines. I have already stated who can, and who might be able to (maybe), win a 2020 election against Trump. They are very few.

There are clearly two criteria here.  First, anyone nominated must be able to get elected in the general.  That eliminates people like Tulsi Gabbard, who seems hell-bent on making otherwise sensible positions totally unacceptable to almost everyone.  The second criterion is much harder: vision and leadership.  Obama had vision, but never lead anyone anywhere.  Bill Clinton, no matter what else you may say about him, had the leadership thing nailed, but totally missed the vision thing.  I'm still sitting on my hands, waiting for someone to set me on fire.  There are several potentials, but none are there yet.
(02-07-2019, 01:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]People said in 2016 much the same thing. The worst thing Hillary and Democrats and progressives did in 2016 was to under-estimate Trump. He is a talented communicator; that's all that counts among American voters. Policies don't; approval polls don't. Unless Democrats nominate a talented candidate, I wouldn't bet on a Democratic victory. None of the announced candidates can beat Trump. They are opportunists merely taking up space on headlines. I have already stated who can, and who might be able to (maybe), win a 2020 election against Trump. They are very few.

Trump has been extremely effective in debasing the level of political discourse. He has taken it to the level of the Jerry Springer Show; one almost expect to see chairs tossed about.

It is long before the 2020 Presidential election, but Trump is not building support, which he absolutely must do if he barely won election the first time. Obama could lose a little and still get re-elected, but to lose as much as Obama did between 2008 and 2010 (1.85%) is enough for a loss for Trump. Attendance at Trump rallies has fallen steadily. Approval numbers are outside the range in which an incumbent catches up with a spirited and effective campaign.
(02-07-2019, 06:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-07-2019, 01:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]People said in 2016 much the same thing. The worst thing Hillary and Democrats and progressives did in 2016 was to under-estimate Trump. He is a talented communicator; that's all that counts among American voters. Policies don't; approval polls don't. Unless Democrats nominate a talented candidate, I wouldn't bet on a Democratic victory. None of the announced candidates can beat Trump. They are opportunists merely taking up space on headlines. I have already stated who can, and who might be able to (maybe), win a 2020 election against Trump. They are very few.

Trump has been extremely effective in debasing the level of political discourse. He has taken it to the level of the Jerry Springer Show; one almost expect to see chairs tossed about.

That's a good comparison Smile

Quote:It is long before the 2020 Presidential election, but Trump is not building support, which he absolutely must do if he barely won election the first time. Obama could lose a little and still get re-elected, but to lose as much as Obama did between 2008 and 2010 (1.85%) is enough for a loss for Trump. Attendance at Trump rallies has fallen steadily. Approval numbers are outside the range in which an incumbent catches up with a spirited and effective campaign.

Approval numbers don't matter. He has an automatic 46%. That will be enough if the Democrats are complacent and nominate another loser. They are good at that. Trump can be defeated, but Democrats must do the right things. Stop beating each other up over Bernie vs. Hillary and the DNC. Look at policies, and who is tied to whom; but also look at who has the skills as a candidate to win. And-- don't ignore astrology just because it has a bad reputation in a materialist society.





Or, ignore it if you must. But take a look at the candidates and how they speak and how they touch or don't touch their audience. Look at their strategy. See if I'm not right about who has the stuff to win.
Morning Consult's 50-state data, colors signifying 100-disapproval, which I see as the Trump ceiling for 2020 unless things change dramatically.

I had 100-DIS numbers for all fifty states and DC, only to lose them. I'm going to try to show that again.

Without electoral votes and with no distinction for districts:

[Image: genusmap.php?year=1964&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=0;1;6]

Basically -- dark blue, Trump wins 55% or more
medium blue, Trump ahead with at least 50% with 100-DIS
pale blue, Trump tied or ahead with 49% or more but less than 53%
white -- Trump tied or behind with 50% or less

Every state in any shade of red is one in which Democrats won a majority of the statewide votes for House candidates in 2018. This is an apples-to-apples comparison because House votes are on issues perceived to be federal matters. Republicans still could win majorities of House delegations in some such states, but they cannot gerrymander out the relevance of the statewide vote on how people perceive the biggest of all federally-elected officials. This may be mere coincidence, but Republicans are in trouble in these states. The President is already toxic, and stands to lose every one of them. Should he pick up two of the states with ten or more electoral votes in this category (most likely among Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), then he gets re-elected. But even if Democrats aren't running the calendar down on hi9m in these states. the President is clearly not gaining in them.

Every state in white is a possible loss for the President. Approval is lower than disapproval in these states or he is tied with disapproval just under 50%. The President is at a 48-48 tie in Texas, which is awful for a state in which no Democratic nominee has won in a Presidential election since 1976. Sure, the demographics of Texas are getting uglier for Republicans, but they are getting uglier elsewhere too. Trump may have won Ohio by 8% in 2016, but a favorability poll for Trump was underwater and that same poll had Trump barely behind on a poll asking whether people wanted to re-elect him or wanted someone else. And don't even ask me about a Marist poll from the summer in which Trump support was abysmal.

Utah? Trump is a bad match for Utah culture. His serial divorces do not fit Mormon family values.

With this map I show the most favorable view of the prospect of the 2020 election for Trump -- and it does not look good. At this point, any state in pink looks to have at least a 70% chance of voting for the Democratic nominee in 2020. States in white? 30-70% one way or the other, and practically any one of them (all but Utah has at least 10 electoral votes to offer) is a killer for any chance of a Trump re-election in the event of a Trump loss.

How some of the states will go will reflect who the Democratic nominee is, what campaign strategies the Trump campaign uses, and of course events between now and November 2020. I can predict none of those now. But -- there is no international disaster that has materialized in the loss of an ally, and the economy is not in a meltdown. I do not expect the President to recover from the serious scandals involving his associates. His personality is unlikely to change, and there is no cultural trend (such as a religious revival favoring the Right as in the 1970s) moving political life toward the Right.


Hard to see

CT 40
DC 19
DE 44
HI 37
NH 42
RI 42
VT 34

... Morning Consult has an R bias, but even using its data in the most flattering way (more cautious than anything else on my part) this polling (some of it is interactive, so that is harder to control) it cannot hide that Donald Trump is in deep trouble. He must turn things around (which I cannot see happening), or he and his associates can cheat. He has failed badly to deliver on his promises, and his Administration is an ethical disaster. But it does get all states every month in ways that other pollsters do not.

I use 100-DIS as a ceiling on the assumption that if the undecided voters tend to be on the Right side of the political spectrum, then those will trend strongly (and in my model completely -- that is how cautious my model is, as I thoroughly despise President Trump), Trump picks up the undecided voters.

I see the Democratic nominee, unless that nominee should be severely troubled winning anywhere between 296 (everything in pink and NE-02 because Nebraska itself is surprisingly close) and 312 electoral votes. (No, I don't see Missouri or Utah going for the Democratic nominee even if my model suggests that such is possible. I so discount the chance of Missouri going for Trump that I see Indiana, Kansas, and Montana more likely to go against him).

Eight years ago I would have said with Obama that if he did enough things right he would win re-election. He would have to be successful running against Congress, avoiding scandals, not showing anger at possible voters, and running a competent and spirited campaign. He did that because he had the skill-set with which to do so, even if he faced one of the historically-strongest challengers against a President who still got re-elected. But Obama was in no way erratic, and he had no scandals to dodge. He was also as slick a campaigner in 2012 as in 2008.

Trump? He is doing well for all the problems that he has and lacking the skill set of the usual President who gets re-elected. Every state in any shade in red is one in which Democrats won the majority of the vote for House seats -- in a midterm election in 2018. He practically has to undo the scandals of his administration and his campaign to get re-elected. That does not happen.
My current assessment of the 2020 Presidential election among imaginable swing states:


[Image: genusmap.php?year=2004&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=0;1;6]

Wisconsin is the tipping-point state in 2020, and it is in white.  Red is for states that the Democrats  must win to have a real chance, and blue is for states that Republicans really must win. Wisconsin looks like a necessity for both Trump or his Democratic challenger. Lightest shades are for the most critical states and darkest shades are for those that indicate a landslide is building. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia each have at least 13 electoral votes, and Clinton won only one of them. That is more important than Nevada (6) or New Hampshire (4). Colorado and Minnesota seem more out of reach for Trump now, as is Maine. I don't have a post-midterm poll for either Pennsylvania or Virginia. But at this stage I assume a near 50-50 electoral map. Trump is not winning Minnesota or Colorado without also winning one of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and perhaps Virginia.  New Mexico, in deep red, is the only state that was between 7% and 10% against Trump in 2016, and although it does not kill the hopes of the Democratic challenger if Trump wins it, its loss by a Democratic challenger indicates that Trump has solved more than enough problems to get re-elected. Trump is apparently not gaining ground in any state that he lost by 10% or more, so we can forget states like New Jersey and Oregon.

The drop-off for Trump is in general by smaller margins. Iowa has polled close to Wisconsin rather consistently since the 2016 election, but it has been more consistently R than Wisconsin. Iowa can decide the election should something funny happen in a small D-leaning state like   Nevada or New Hampshire. Iowa under some circumstances could be more critical than its six electoral votes ordinarily indicate. Arizona could have much the same effect, except that Trump is not going to lose Arizona if he wins Nevada, let alone Colorado.

Middle blue is for several electorally-large (the smallest of them, North Carolina, has a full 15 electoral votes), and every one of them is a killer for any prospect of a Trump re-election. It is nearly impossible to distinguish them now,  but together they comprise 78 electoral votes and, with the single electoral votes at risk in Maine and Nebraska of voting contrary to the rest of their respective states, the range of uncertainty that I now see in the 2020 Presidential election. The Democrat need not win any one of these states, but any one of these kills the Trump bid for re-election. The states in question are Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio in the sense that Michigan or Pennsylvania going for Trump in 2020 seals a Trump victory -- but even more severely.  Because no Presidential election has ever been decided by one or two electoral votes, I'm putting the potentially 'stray' electoral votes of Maine and Nebraska in yellow -- a flashing yellow that means that you must prepare to stop, but you probably won't have to.  That is 80 electoral votes in yellow and medium red, a tier of states and districts hat could about as easily all go for Trump or all against him should Trump lose Arizona and Iowa.

(Yes, at this point I see Trump losing both Arizona and Iowa because polling in those states has been bad for him and both voted majorities of their vote for Democratic nominees  for House seats. Maine-02 was ambiguous due to ranked-choice voting which might not apply to the Presidential election of 2020). States in this tier all gave Republican majorities for House elections, suggesting that Democrats have their work cut out to win any of them.

Texas has 38 electoral votes, and it is a bigger category than any but two categories on its own. But Texas looks to straddle 400 electoral votes for the Democratic nominee -- any Democratic nominee, and that is where Texas has been since at least 1992.

No Democratic nominee has won 400 or more electoral votes since LBJ did in 1964.  

Beyond this, Texas is the only state that has a chance of going for the Democrat and being of any significance. I have seen unflattering polls of the President in such states as Alaska and Montana, but their three electoral votes make no difference. States close in 2008 that have not since been close (Indiana and Missouri) indicate that Trump has lost Ohio and Georgia, respectively.

Utah is in green in the event that something happens that has not happened in nearly a century (when Wisconsin went for LaFollette) -- a state going to a non-racist Third-Party or independent nominee. It is not going for any Democrat under any circumstance. I can imagine the Utah Democratic Party endorsing such a nominee, let us say a conservative with the blessing of the LDS hierarchy, which is a stretch of my imagination.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index....eab5d7f906
I think either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania is a good bet for the swing state. Whether the Democrats nominate a loser or not, will be the critical factor, of course. A good candidate like McAuliffe or Landrieu, who also have some advantage in being from the South, would probably win North Carolina and Florida, plus Virginia of course, and probably win the 3 Trump Rust Belt swing states comfortably, and take Ohio, Iowa and the western swing states as well. But someone like Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Warren, Gabbard, O'Rourke or Gillibrand would likely allow Trump to take his southern base and get one of those 2 critical swing Rust Belt states too, which is all he would need since that would likely mean he gets Ohio, Iowa and AZ again too. Brown, Biden or Sanders? It's a crap shoot, but at least their name recognition and having good ability to stand up to him, and with their Rust Belt appeal, they might be able to squeeze through.
The fault in Donald Trump is not in his stars. The stars cannot cover for incompetence, corruption, or turning people off.
(02-11-2019, 09:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I think either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania is a good bet for the swing state. Whether the Democrats nominate a loser or not, will be the critical factor, of course. A good candidate like McAuliffe or Landrieu, who also have some advantage in being from the South, would probably win North Carolina and Florida, plus Virginia of course, and probably win the 3 Trump Rust Belt swing states comfortably, and take Ohio, Iowa and the western swing states as well. But someone like Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Warren, Gabbard, O'Rourke or Gillibrand would likely allow Trump to take his southern base and get one of those 2 critical swing Rust Belt states too, which is all he would need since that would likely mean he gets Ohio, Iowa and AZ again too. Brown, Biden or Sanders? It's a crap shoot, but at least their name recognition and having good ability to stand up to him, and with their Rust Belt appeal, they might be able to squeeze through.

I have to disagree with much of this.  The blue collar voters in most states have similar hot buttons, and both Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown have excellent track records appealing to them in states that have been problematic for Democrats for quite a while.  Both have non-elite backgrounds and come across as calm and friendly  and very pro-people.  Of the two, Klobuchar is by far the better speaker; she may be the woman to break through.

The other woman with real potential is Kamala Harris, if she can get her understanding of economics up to her level on criminal justice.  Of the entire batch, she's the best in front of an audience, and that counts for a lot.  Of the remaining women, Warren missed her shot 4 years ago, Gabbard is wacky and Gillibrand is too Hillary-like.

The rest of the men are simply unlikely to break through, and I include Beto O'Rourke here.  His time hasn't arrived yet, though he may be the VP candidate for the Dems.  Both Landrieu and McAuliffe are it in for appointments.  I doubt either sees himself winning in this particular race … barring something bizarre like we have in Virginia right now.
(02-12-2019, 07:54 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2019, 09:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I think either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania is a good bet for the swing state. Whether the Democrats nominate a loser or not, will be the critical factor, of course. A good candidate like McAuliffe or Landrieu, who also have some advantage in being from the South, would probably win North Carolina and Florida, plus Virginia of course, and probably win the 3 Trump Rust Belt swing states comfortably, and take Ohio, Iowa and the western swing states as well. But someone like Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Warren, Gabbard, O'Rourke or Gillibrand would likely allow Trump to take his southern base and get one of those 2 critical swing Rust Belt states too, which is all he would need since that would likely mean he gets Ohio, Iowa and AZ again too. Brown, Biden or Sanders? It's a crap shoot, but at least their name recognition and having good ability to stand up to him, and with their Rust Belt appeal, they might be able to squeeze through.

I have to disagree with much of this.  The blue collar voters in most states have similar hot buttons, and both Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown have excellent track records appealing to them in states that have been problematic for Democrats for quite a while.  Both have non-elite backgrounds and come across as calm and friendly  and very pro-people.  Of the two, Klobuchar is by far the better speaker; she may be the woman to break through.

The other woman with real potential is Kamala Harris, if she can get her understanding of economics up to her level on criminal justice.  Of the entire batch, she's the best in front of an audience, and that counts for a lot.  Of the remaining women, Warren missed her shot 4 years ago, Gabbard is wacky and Gillibrand is too Hillary-like.

The rest of the men are simply unlikely to break through, and I include Beto O'Rourke here.  His time hasn't arrived yet, though he may be the VP candidate for the Dems.  Both Landrieu and McAuliffe are it in for appointments.  I doubt either sees himself winning in this particular race … barring something bizarre like we have in Virginia right now.

My cosmic indicators say otherwise. And if you pay attention, you will see that they are right. Harris does not speak well. She sounds weak and nasal. I see no potential in Klobuchar, and not sure what you see in her. They both have spoken well in Senate hearings, but that doesn't mean much. Sherrod does have a coarse voice, but once he gets going, his conviction comes through. He could beat the Drump. Landrieu and McAuliffe are not "in it" yet, so I don't see them as angling for appointments. They will run, if they do, because people ask them too, because people see that they are excellent potential leaders. I agree on Warren, Gillibrand and Gabbard. 

I was thinking more about just how those candidates who actually have a chance would do in the states. 

Bernie Sanders

I am a bit nervous about Sanders, just looking at the states. He does have a powerful speaking ability and appeal, although he gets stuck in ruts. He was considered the most popular candidate a while back, but we'll only know whether he will lead the pack once he gets in. He is steadfast and honest in the face of attacks. He has a fundraising advantage. His age is a concern though, although he is robust. The socialist charge will likely hurt him in Trump's southern base, and he could lose most of the other Trump states too. Among swing states, as a leftist Sanders would have a tough climb in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Nevada, although he can win them, and he would probably lose Ohio and Iowa. He would likely win Wisconsin and Michigan though, where he did well in a blue-state primary in 2016. So PA and VA would likely decide the race. His fame and moderate degree of charisma might carry him over the barriers of being a leftist, since he would appeal to a grass roots feeling of the need for real change. But it's a real crap shoot.

Joe Biden

Although he is not the most articulate candidate, emotionally and physically he would stand up well to Trump's insults. He was recently leading in the polls, and although because of his age and more moderate stance he would lose some appeal to progressive millennials, some older ones respect him as Obama's VP. He is one of the strongest candidates who would run in the moderate lane, and that could give him a primary edge. He seems to me to have a better chance in the Trump states than Sanders has. He would sweep through the Trump Rust Belt, and winning PA is a cinch for him. Given Obama's popularity in The West, and Biden's more moderate stance, he would likely win Nevada, and he might penetrate into Ohio and Iowa. He could win a few southern states, Virginia for sure and maybe NC or Florida, though this is dicey. I would still say Biden as nominee is a crap shoot too, but he might have a better chance than Sanders.

Sherrod Brown

Obviously, his strength in his home state of Ohio gives him an advantage, and the other Rust Belt states would go his way too. He likely would win Virginia, but not other southern states, and Nevada and AZ might be out of reach, but he would not need them.

Terry McAuliffe

His emphasis on his ability to create jobs and support transportation infrastructure would play well in the Rust Belt. He would likely sweep it, and his luck would seep south from Virginia to possibly net him North Carolina and Florida. I think he would hold on to the more moderate blue states in the West like Nevada.

Mitch Landrieu

He could have some strength in his native south, possibly winning him Louisiana, where he was Lt. Governor and Mayor. Florida and North Carolina might swing his way, and Virginia would be a cinch. His strength of appeal on the race issue might not play as well in white parts of the Rust Belt, but I think his obvious superiority in likeability and candidate skill would probably carry him to a nationwide victory. He has landslide potential. He is even more like Bill Clinton than Bill's understudy and protege, Mr. McAuliffe.
I'm watching Amy announce her candidacy. So far, it sounds like she's running for president of Minnesota and the Mississippi River, and how well she and her family do in the cold. And what good candidates her parents would make. No more chaos and gridlock; where did we hear that before?

She has a strong voice, but a bit ponderous. It may not wear well. "The obstacles are the path." She may face her share. Lots of generalities.



(02-12-2019, 02:28 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]The fault in Donald Trump is not in his stars. The stars cannot cover for incompetence, corruption, or turning people off.

There is truth in that; what you do with your stars makes your life. But what his stars did for him was make him president. His abilities as a candidate are what they show. Despite his poor performance and lack of morals, that is what makes the difference in elections, and why although he is not invincible, he cannot be underestimated. It is a real risk for the Democrats to nominate another loser. If Trump gets in, the Supreme Court and the other federal courts and the Senate will be able to hold back most of the reforms and progress we need, if our republic is to survive in the long run.
(02-12-2019, 09:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-12-2019, 07:54 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2019, 09:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I think either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania is a good bet for the swing state. Whether the Democrats nominate a loser or not, will be the critical factor, of course. A good candidate like McAuliffe or Landrieu, who also have some advantage in being from the South, would probably win North Carolina and Florida, plus Virginia of course, and probably win the 3 Trump Rust Belt swing states comfortably, and take Ohio, Iowa and the western swing states as well. But someone like Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Warren, Gabbard, O'Rourke or Gillibrand would likely allow Trump to take his southern base and get one of those 2 critical swing Rust Belt states too, which is all he would need since that would likely mean he gets Ohio, Iowa and AZ again too. Brown, Biden or Sanders? It's a crap shoot, but at least their name recognition and having good ability to stand up to him, and with their Rust Belt appeal, they might be able to squeeze through.

I have to disagree with much of this.  The blue collar voters in most states have similar hot buttons, and both Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown have excellent track records appealing to them in states that have been problematic for Democrats for quite a while.  Both have non-elite backgrounds and come across as calm and friendly  and very pro-people.  Of the two, Klobuchar is by far the better speaker; she may be the woman to break through.

The other woman with real potential is Kamala Harris, if she can get her understanding of economics up to her level on criminal justice.  Of the entire batch, she's the best in front of an audience, and that counts for a lot.  Of the remaining women, Warren missed her shot 4 years ago, Gabbard is wacky and Gillibrand is too Hillary-like.

The rest of the men are simply unlikely to break through, and I include Beto O'Rourke here.  His time hasn't arrived yet, though he may be the VP candidate for the Dems.  Both Landrieu and McAuliffe are it in for appointments.  I doubt either sees himself winning in this particular race … barring something bizarre like we have in Virginia right now.

My cosmic indicators say otherwise. And if you pay attention, you will see that they are right. Harris does not speak well. She sounds weak and nasal. I see no potential in Klobuchar, and not sure what you see in her. They both have spoken well in Senate hearings, but that doesn't mean much. Sherrod does have a coarse voice, but once he gets going, his conviction comes through. He could beat the Drump. Landrieu and McAuliffe are not "in it" yet, so I don't see them as angling for appointments. They will run, if they do, because people ask them too, because people see that they are excellent potential leaders. I agree on Warren, Gillibrand and Gabbard. 

I was thinking more about just how those candidates who actually have a chance would do in the states. 

Bernie Sanders

I am a bit nervous about Sanders, just looking at the states. He does have a powerful speaking ability and appeal, although he gets stuck in ruts. He was considered the most popular candidate a while back, but we'll only know whether he will lead the pack once he gets in. He is steadfast and honest in the face of attacks. He has a fundraising advantage. His age is a concern though, although he is robust. The socialist charge will likely hurt him in Trump's southern base, and he could lose most of the other Trump states too. Among swing states, as a leftist Sanders would have a tough climb in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Nevada, although he can win them, and he would probably lose Ohio and Iowa. He would likely win Wisconsin and Michigan though, where he did well in a blue-state primary in 2016. So PA and VA would likely decide the race. His fame and moderate degree of charisma might carry him over the barriers of being a leftist, since he would appeal to a grass roots feeling of the need for real change. But it's a real crap shoot.

Joe Biden

Although he is not the most articulate candidate, emotionally and physically he would stand up well to Trump's insults. He was recently leading in the polls, and although because of his age and more moderate stance he would lose some appeal to progressive millennials, some older ones respect him as Obama's VP. He is one of the strongest candidates who would run in the moderate lane, and that could give him a primary edge. He seems to me to have a better chance in the Trump states than Sanders has. He would sweep through the Trump Rust Belt, and winning PA is a cinch for him. Given Obama's popularity in The West, and Biden's more moderate stance, he would likely win Nevada, and he might penetrate into Ohio and Iowa. He could win a few southern states, Virginia for sure and maybe NC or Florida, though this is dicey. I would still say Biden as nominee is a crap shoot too, but he might have a better chance than Sanders.

Sherrod Brown

Obviously, his strength in his home state of Ohio gives him an advantage, and the other Rust Belt states would go his way too. He likely would win Virginia, but not other southern states, and Nevada and AZ might be out of reach, but he would not need them.

Terry McAuliffe

His emphasis on his ability to create jobs and support transportation infrastructure would play well in the Rust Belt. He would likely sweep it, and his luck would seep south from Virginia to possibly net him North Carolina and Florida. I think he would hold on to the more moderate blue states in the West like Nevada.

Mitch Landrieu

He could have some strength in his native south, possibly winning him Louisiana, where he was Lt. Governor and Mayor. Florida and North Carolina might swing his way, and Virginia would be a cinch. His strength of appeal on the race issue might not play as well in white parts of the Rust Belt, but I think his obvious superiority in likeability and candidate skill would probably carry him to a nationwide victory. He has landslide potential. He is even more like Bill Clinton than Bill's understudy and protege, Mr. McAuliffe.
Well, we can't say he isn't entertaining!
This is how I see a potential Trump/Bernie Sanders election, if Sanders pulls it out in VA and PA.

[Image: b4VXk.png]
At this point the difference between the nominees will be of the shape of their victories and matters of personal health, including mental health. Anyone over 70 is at some risk for senile dementia, and we may see that already in Donald Trump. We saw it in Reagan, but at the least Reagan had some good people (if in political skill if not political decency) to cover for him. Trump completely lacks that. Nobody can tell him to at least let someone read through his sophomoric tweets -- and I am certain that Barack Obama had someone look over any press release before he released it.

Liberals will vote for whatever satisfies their ideology (really humanism). They could vote for Clinton even if he was not from their part of the country, and they rejected Trump even if he was from their part of the country. Obama shows clearly that ethnicity does not matter. America is ready to vote for whoever will fully repudiate the disaster that is now President.

The decision that I will make will be upon who will be an effective President in the wake of Trump. I have about a year in which to make my decision. I definitely want someone with Reagan-like political skills and an Eisenhower-like temperament. Sorry, the pesky 22nd Amendment denies Obama. Four years of Trump is four years too many.
Well, I agree, and I hope America will be ready to fully repudiate the disaster that is now President. After Nov.2004 I have been less optimistic, and in 2016 the people already knew Trump was a disaster, but they voted for him in enough numbers to squeak in anyway (with the help of many other nefarious factors) because he had more political skills than Hillary. So, we'll see.
Any result that isn't overwhelming is a defeat for both sides. The cross-party animosity is too brutal to allow anything more than stalemate unless one party or the other dominates in 2020. I don't see the GOPpers pulling that off again, but I can't feel fully confident that the Dems can either.

On another topic, we have Peter Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend Indiana. This guy is the real deal, but he's only 37 and starting from a mayor's slot is long pull to the Presidency. On the plus side, he's whip smart: Harvard grad and Rhodes Scholar, Afghanistan veteran, speaks several languages, thinks on his feet and is courageous. He's also gay, so he's a nearly perfect Millennial. He has the best defense of the Green New Deal I've ever heard … period.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40